JustCare

Tag: Policy

  • Social Security: It’s time to build on its success

    Social Security: It’s time to build on its success

    Social Security is a model government program, financed by and supporting working families in the event of retirement, disability, and death. It is administered in a wise and cost-effective manner. Social Security can only pay out what it has in its coffers. It cannot spend more than it has.  Now, it’s time to build on its proven success.

    In August 1953, President Eisenhower proposed an expansion of Social Security, telling Congress that “Retirement systems, by which individuals contribute to their own security according to their respective abilities . . .are but a reflection of the American heritage of sturdy self-reliance which has made our country strong and kept it free . . . The Social Security program furnishes, on a national scale, the opportunity for our citizens, through . . .self-reliance, to build the foundation for their security.”

    Contrary to what you might hear from some pundits, our nation can afford our current level of Social Security. In fact, we can afford a greatly expanded Social Security. America is the wealthiest country in the world.  The question of whether to expand Social Security is simply about our priorities, not about whether we have the funds to do so.

    Congress and the President should agree with President Nixon that “the retired, the disabled and the dependent [beneficiaries of Social Security] never again bear the brunt of inflation. The way to prevent future unfairness is to attach the benefit schedule to the cost of living.” And, in 1972, Congress passed legislation to index Social Security in order to prevent inflation from eroding its earned benefits.  Unfortunately, while in theory Social Security’s benefits should not erode over time, in practice they do.

    The inflation adjustment measure for Social Security does not comport with the spending patterns of older adults and people with disabilities.  People who receive Social Security tend to spend more on health care, whose costs have been rising far faster than overall inflation.  As a result, while costs for Social Security beneficiaries have risen in the last year, there is no Social Security cost of living adjustment in 2016. The formula needs to change.  And, there are some bills in Congress that would change it.

    Historically, Republicans and Democrats alike have worked together to improve and expand Social Security.  President Reagan signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1983 and spoke about “our nation’s ironclad commitment to Social Security.”  It’s time that Congress pass Social Security legislation which expands benefits while requiring the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share.  That should, reassure Americans, as Reagan said, “that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago.”

    It is time for Social Security beneficiaries to receive a raise and for the wealthiest Americans to start paying their fair share. If you agree, sign this joint Social Security Works and Credo Action petition.

    Watch Robert Reich explain why we can afford to expand Social Security. Click here to learn about why claiming Social Security benefits early disproportionately hurts people with low incomes. Click here to read why higher Social Security benefits helps memory and mental functioning for older adults.

  • Members of Congress have a stake in drug and device companies they regulate

    Members of Congress have a stake in drug and device companies they regulate

    We all know about the large amount of money the drug and device companies contribute to members of Congress, with the hope that it will lead them to support legislation that maximizes their profits.  (And, indeed, federal policy supports high drug prices.)  But did you know that many members of Congress invest substantially in these companies?  According to a STAT investigation, some 30 percent of Senators and 20 percent of House members have a stake in drug and device companies they regulate.

    Three of the most common investments, according to STAT, are Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and Merck.  And, members of Congress are allowed to hold them even when they sit on the committees that regulate these companies, the House Judiciary Committtee, which oversees patent law, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees the FDA and drug regulation.

     U.S. Representative Christopher Collins has a $5-25 million stake in a company he co-founded that makes the parts for a machine that performs diagnostic tests. So, not surprisingly, when the FDA said it wanted to regulate those tests, he objected strongly.  He also appears to object both to FDA monitoring of drugs for safety and efficacy after they go to market, calling for a loosening of this oversight activity, and to the medical device tax in the Affordable Care Act.

    U.S. Representative Scott Peters objects to the Innovation Act bill, which would benefit consumers by permitting more challenges to pharmaceutical company patents. It would also impose a significant cost on the drug companies. His wife is a big investor in pharmaceutical companies.  The list of members with conflicts between their personal desires and their responsibilities to the public goes on and on.

    With their wealth in part contingent on high returns on investment for the drug and device companies, it’s no wonder Congress has yet to pass a law that would permit Americans to import drugs from abroad, let alone to allow the negotiation of drug prices.

    Here are six tips for keeping your drug costs down if you have Medicare.
  • Federal policy promotes high drug prices

    Federal policy promotes high drug prices

    The guy who in the early 1980s helped design the current regulatory structure that governs the pharmaceutical industry has some incisive thoughts about how things have played out and the current outrage about drug prices.  In a blog for the journal Health Affairs, Alfred Engelberg argues that the 1984 law (called the Hatch-Waxman Act) that allowed drug companies to sell their products without generic competition for over a decade has “not withstood the test of time.”

    He says that law and subsequent legislation have created a monopoly situation for the companies that make brand name drugs, permitting them to price gouge the American public.

    The big worry today surrounds so-called biologic drugs—those made from living materials and through biotech engineering.  Most are very expensive–$10,000 to $200,000 or even more for a year’s treatment.  Many new cancer drugs are biologics, with more to come over the next decade.  Here, too, Engelberg argues, Congress went too far in 2010 when it permitted such drugs 12 years of market exclusivity (meaning no generic competitors allowed.)

    “High prices… are the inevitable result and will remain so unless Congress makes fundamental changes in existing law,” he writes.

    Engelberg also asserts that today’s laws and regulations discourage competition based on price or the comparative effectiveness of medicines.  For example, Congress has barred Medicare from negotiating directly with drugs companies to get the best price based on price and effectiveness.  Say drugs A, B and C treat a certain form of cancer but drug B has been proven to be 20% more effective and is also 15% less expensive.  Medicare is not allowed to go to the makers of drugs A and C and say we won’t pay your higher price. (Drug price negotiation is a top policy issue for Americans.)

    To boot, current law allows drug companies to manipulate this dysfunctional marketplace by spending tens of billions of dollars every year to stoke demand for high-priced, low-value drugs (for example, through drug advertising that is allowed in only one other developed country (New Zealand), and by paying doctors to give educational seminars on brand-name drugs.  Medicare wasted over $4 billion in 2013, for example, on the heartburn drug Nexium and the cholesterol drug Crestor.  For both drugs, equivalent alternatives are available at a tiny fraction of their cost, Engelberg says.

    Finally, Engelberg inveighs against the “false notion” that high drug prices and monopolies are necessary to support the high cost of research.  In fact, he says, studies show that what high drug prices over the past 25 years have primarily yielded is “one of the most profitable industries in America,” which enjoys a median return on assets two to three times higher than the median return for all Fortune 500 companies.

    To read Engelberg’s prescription for reform, access his article here.  And, if you have Medicare, here are six tips for bringing your drug costs down and six things to know about your over-the-counter medications.  Keeping a list of your medications and the medications of your loved ones on your phone or in your wallet helps ensure that, in case of emergency, you and the people you love get appropriate care. Here are four other important tips.

  • Sen. Warren introduces law that would increase Social Security benefits in 2016

    Sen. Warren introduces law that would increase Social Security benefits in 2016

    Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced the Seniors and Veterans Emergency (SAVE) Benefits Act today.  If passed, people receiving Social Security benefits, veterans and others would get $581 more in 2016. This one-time payment is equal to 3.9 percent of the average Social Security annual retirement benefit.

    In 2016, older adults and people with disabilities are not receiving any increase in their Social Security benefits. The proposed additional payment is designed to match the 3.9 percent average CEO pay increase last year.

    Senator Warren proposes to fund the one-time payment by ending the CEO performance pay tax break.  That will cover the cost of  this payment and help extend the life of the Social Security Trust Funds.

    If Congress were to require the Social Security Administration to base Social Security cost of living increases on the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly, which far more accurately reflects increases to retirees’ costs, people receiving Social Security benefits would see an increase in 2016.

  • President Obama’s 2016 budget relatively good on Social Security

    President Obama’s 2016 budget relatively good on Social Security

    While the President’s proposed Medicare policies leave a lot to be desired, he gets it right on Social Security. The President proposes to move tax revenue from the Social Security retirement fund to the Social Security disability fund, which would otherwise not be able to pay full benefits towards the end of 2016.

    Under the President’s plan, both the Social Security retirement fund and the disability fund would be able to pay full benefits until 2033. Without a reallocation, Social Security disability benefits to 11 million Americans would be cut by almost one-fifth (19 percent). Since the typical benefit is about $1150 a month, many severely disabled individuals would see their incomes fall well below poverty.

    (more…)

  • How Obama’s 2016 proposed budget hurts older Americans

    How Obama’s 2016 proposed budget hurts older Americans

    The President’s 2016 proposed budget hurts older Americans with Medicare. While it contains many commendable proposals, it mistakenly buys into the philosophy that it’s OK to tax older Americans (make them pay more) and keep them from getting care if they are unable to afford the Medicare deductible or the copays.  President Obama proposes to raise the Medicare deductible, impose a copay on home health care services and increase premiums for many older adults already at risk.  If that’s not bad enough, he wants people to pay extra for a Medicare supplemental (Medigap) policy that ensures full coverage for their care.

    Think again, Mr. President. High deductibles and copays are simply ways to ration care based on people’s ability to pay. They impede access to needed care for the most vulnerable Americans in two sinister ways.  First, they keep many older adults from getting care altogether, essentially forcing them to endure a poor quality of life and possibly contributing to their premature death.  Second, they undo the larger purpose of insurance, concentrating risk and costs among those who need a lot of care rather than spreading risk among everyone.

    People with Medicare already typically spend a large chunk of their incomes on health care costs Medicare does not cover.  The latest data from Kaiser Family Foundation reveals that in 2010 the typical person with Medicare spent almost $5000 out of pocket.  People over 85 spent an average of nearly $6000.  And, people with Alzheimer’s spent an average of $8305.

    There’s a just and fair way to reduce Medicare spending further without shifting more costs onto older adults—insist the government negotiate with pharmaceutical and medical device companies on the prices we taxpayers pay for prescription drugs and devices, now the highest prices in the world. That would save Medicare billions of dollars. Yes, the President proposes giving the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to negotiate prices for biologics and select high-priced drugs. This is good but the authority needs to be comprehensive and include all drugs.

    Imposing additional costs on America’s oldest generation, the overwhelming majority of whom live on small fixed incomes, is unconscionable. Look at the data. Isn’t it time we limited out-of-pocket costs for people with Medicare to ensure they receive needed care. Increasing their costs only guarantees that more of them will struggle to get by.

  • Why Congress should increase the minimum wage to its 1968 level

    Why Congress should increase the minimum wage to its 1968 level

    A new report by the Economic Policy Institute illustrates why Congress should increase the minimum wage.  Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa and Representative George Miller of California have introduced a bill to raise the minimum raise to $10.10 an hour, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2014.
    • Fact: The federal minimum wage has not increased since more than five years ago, when it was raised to $7.25 an hour.  Each year since then, as a result of inflation, its value has eroded.
    • Fact: Fulltime minimum wage workers today earn 25 percent less than they did 45 years ago.  In 1968, the federal minimum wage was equivalent to $9.58 in today’s dollars.
    • Fact: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would mean 1.7 million Americans would no longer rely on public assistance programs.
    • Fact: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would save the government $7.6 billion in spending on public assistance programs.
    If you like this post, you should also read this:
    Raising the minimum wage strengthens Social Security